On empires and frontiers
From Firenze University Press Book: Carolingian Frontiers: Italy and Beyond
Francesco Borri, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
An empire is a universally recognized political organization, suggesting rich variety and several associated ideas1.There is disagreement on what an empire is: an extended debate on the role and identity of empires has provoked a vast literature on the topic, cutting across disciplines, characterized by a strongly diachronic approach and by specific terminology, which differs slightly according to context. Surveys generally highlight structures common to empires in world history, only subsequently focusing on distinctive case studies: «[o]ne benefit of comparison is that it helps to clarify phenomena and to sharpen the distinctive nature of the objects under scrutiny». It is suggestive that, if all surveys on empires cover the Roman and the British, the Carolingian Empire is seldom included, or at least it was not until a few years ago; in a paper in 2006, Susan Reynolds still lamented this omission. It seems to have reflected the perceived anomaly of the Carolingian Empire (together with its later incarnations), which led scholars to doubt the imperial nature of Charlemagne’s polity. Reasons were found in diverse structural features, ranging from the empire’s Mittellage to the rudimentary fiscal system, through to its ephemeral life5. Geoffrey Barraclough notably wrote that «Charles himself became an emperor; but the lands over which he ruled did not became “an empire”». In the past few decades, however, important studies have appreciably altered this picture. Two volumes have been published in Vienna on the role of early Medieval Staatlichkeit, with the Carolingian Empire as part of the debate, especially in its relation to ecclesia as a comprehensive concept denoting a multi-ethnic polity. The new developments on the empire’s conceptualization were visible in numerous publications, such as the important textbook The Carolingian World, or edited volumes and monographs where the centrality of empire features already in the title; a recent issue of «Studies in Church History» was dedicated to the topic of Church and Empire; one of «Medieval Worlds» focused on empires in comparison, with the Carolingian formation featuring prominently. Jinty Nelson’s recent monograph also highlights Charles’ imperial dignity. In the most recent survey on empires, an important article by Rosamond McKitterick focused on the Carolingian imperium and its high medieval successors. In the following discussion, I shall focus on the Carolingian Empire, but I shall also look at its eastern Roman predecessor, together with the Ottonian and Hohenstaufen successors, relying on both the vast literature on empires and the more focused studies of Medieval Europe.
- Brief anatomy of a concept
Empires stretched back in history for thousands of years, flourishing across the globe, rising, as pointed out by Michael Mann, on account of their superior military power and economy. Ian Morris wrote that «the history of empire is the history of organized violence». They happen by chance; their success being determined by «luck» according to W.G. Runciman. Expansion seems semantically bound to the very notion of empire and imperialism. In fact, empires rule over territories outside their original one, stretching from a dominant core, called in scholarly discourse “metropole”, to the more or the less distant peripheries: «they involve the exercise of domination by the rulers of a central society over the populations of peripheral societies without either absorbing them to the point that they become fellow-members of the central society or disengaging from them to the point that they become confederates rather than subjects». Generally, empires aim to co-opt local elites in order to lead them to recognise the value of imperial ideology for their own advantage; they penetrate the fabric of their society in an uneven manner: some regions are loosely ruled, while others are firmly controlled. Peripheries are governed emphasising difference, rather than assimilation, so that imperial frontiers do not include a culturally and politically homogeneous and coherent space, as ideally modern nation states do; Alexander Motyl compared empires to a wheel with a hub and spokes, but no rim16. Among empires, military power is fuelled by a strong ideology and superior claims to non-imperial neighbours. This imperial mission is the main element which defines empires. To use a tautology, empires are such because they act in an imperial manner. Political acts seek to achieve prestige, which Max Weber would have called Prestigestreben. It does not mean that, as political entities, they are not driven by strategic considerations, but ideology is securely embedded in their actions. Imperial actors see their power legitimized through their mission, so that cosmologies, foundation myths and myths of military glory, together with clearly manifested destinies, are shaped to justify the imperial order. Claims for superior right to rule, a world-encompassing mission such as peace, religion, celestial harmony, civilization or democracy, generally follow the early conquests: they are all ideologies of just or benevolent rule. These «Visions of Empire», to quote Krishan Kumar, are rooted in an asymmetric relationship between that empire and its surrounding polities. Asymmetry means a hierarchy of authority and legitimacy between empire and states. If relationships between nation-states are ideally based on equal rights and sovereignty, empires claimed higher status toward their neighbouring polities. Herfried Münkler wrote: «Staaten gibt es stets im Plural, Imperien meist im Singular», states are always in the plural, empires mostly in the singular. Yet, an empire may adopt different strategies in order to relate to another, such as China and Rome, or Iran and the Steppe powers.
DOI: 10.36253/979–12–215–0416–3.03
Read Full Text: https://books.fupress.it/chapter/on-empires-and-frontiers/15096
